Asking Obama to come clean on Benghazi is like expecting Nixon to volunteer the
Watergate tapes to the media. Not going to happen. The ONLY way you will ever
find out the details from the White House is if you have a GOP led senate and an
appointed oversight committee led by the GOP who crack this case open for all to
see. Obama is a coward and a liar but that is what the man has always been so
nothing new here. Obama lied about the video. Obama instructed others to lie
about the video. Obama gave the order to our waiting forces to "stand
down" even as he watched real time this 7 hour attack play out. The plan all
along was to present this to the American people as a video inspired mob attack
and nothing more. Obama allowed 2 brave Navy Seals to die so when Obama now says
"we leave no one behind" ... what sort of spineless man is this guy?
Barack Obama is a man without honor and 50% of America love him for it - what
does that tell you about that 50% (or 47% as Mitt correctly stated)

About two hours ago CNN wrote a story about the "coverup" and CONFIRMED
more or less all the claims that FOX News has been bringing to the attention of
the American people. The facts being reported by FOX News are correct. They
denied there's a coverup. Yet if you go to their website, IT IS NOT LISTED
ON THEIR FRONT PAGE. I found it doing a targeted news search.

This
is how an internet news coverup occurs. They write the stories so that they can
later point to them and claim they're fair and balanced, but what you
don't see is how much exposure those stories actually get on their website.
If they never allow the story to reach the front page, and bury it beneath
hundreds of opposing opinion pieces that have either nothing to do with it, or
denigrate the candidate they don't endorse, they are showing political
bias--while trying to leave themselves evidence so that they can point back at
it once they're called on the carpet for media bias.

They are
expert liars, because they've told the truth the whole time, just hide all
the inconvenient parts.

Thanks for being so measured in your article! THIS kind of article is an
excellent example of the very best reporting, that we need MORE of.
(Unfortunately, news is such a 24-hour cycle, reduced to sound bites, that we
just don't get many of these types of stories anymore.)

It will
be very interesting to hear the results of the inquiries and investigations.

My thoughts go out to the families who experienced loss of their
loved ones. Those who gave their lives protecting others (who also reduced the
casualties that would have happened without their help) are heroes that deserve
the public admiration. They deserve their stories, and the full truth, to be
told. To have the "official" story switched several times is an
absolute disgrace, and borders on despicable behavior. Come clean, tell all,
and honor our dead heroes. Yes, someone's career will probably end when
all is told. Maybe several. Well, do what's right. (A general was
already forced into early retirement over this.) If "they" didn't
do what was right in the first place, we don't want them in such high
places (making life and death decisions) anyway.

I'm glad to hear all the Pub's clear up this issue. Heck, why even do
an investigation lets just send Fox News in to do the reporting. They seem to
have all the facts.

No matter that Ambassador Stevens was at the
CONSULATE not the EMBASSY, which was more heavily guarded but in Tripoli. Lets
not forget that its KINDA hard to stop a mob set on murdering and destruction.
It's easy after the fact to say "We should have had more
protection", nobody could have seen this coming. Yes, they requested more
security but you can thank the Pubs for cutting spending on security.

And to all those who say Obama is a murderer... Get real Please. I could say
Bush murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 with that justification. "He should
have seen the warning signs, because of President Bush 3,000 Americans are
dead." Doesn't make sense right? Then quit being one-sided. Just a
bunch of hypocrites. Republican=Hypocrite on every single issue!

the fact that fox news and people like you keep exploiting
that fathers grief is just further evidence of George's point.

@O"really

people keep claiming he never called it an act of
terror yet he did three times in the first 48 hours. in the rose garden on 9/12,
in denver on /913 and again in Nevada on 9/13. the CIA made a statement two days
ago stating that they where at no time told to stand down, do you have proof
otherwise? The official story of what happened to the ambassador states he was
taken to a different safe house type area and that is where he died and that at
no point was he drug through the streets. DO you have proof otherwise.Do you
have any proof there was a live feed that was being watched? do you have any
actual proof of any of the claims being made?

To "raybies" can you please post the name of the story that you found on
CNN. Since liberals refuse to believe Fox, maybe some of the more sensible
liberals will believe CNN reporting that there is a coverup going on.

@KJB1I doubt the Republicans will as interested in this issue after the
election as they are now. Romney was clearly wrong (and offensive) in his
attack during the debate. Obama called it a terrorist attack the next day.

The main source for this "investigative" piece..... FoxNews un-named
sources.

The facts will come out.

Many wont like them
regardless of which way they lean

Conspiracy people will have a hay
day with this making up all kids of wild claims they can't support other
than they read it on the internet somewhere.

And sane people will
look for a measured and thoughtful analysis of what happened... when all the
facts are in.

But until then, we will have the grassy knoll types,
the Bush planned 9/11, that Pearl Harbor was a ruse to get us into the War
theories. There are people out there that want to think the worst of other
people, and no logical discussion is going to change their mind.

It was the father of the Navy Seal who brought this
to out attention, and it was he who is asking why President Obama isn't
answering his questions. If President Obama had done his job this man's
son would still be alive. Shall we all stick our heads in the sand and pretend
that it didn't happen?

Redshirt, I imagine the article raybies is talking about is: Bennett: Obama,
what happened in Benghazi?

It is not a news article, it is an op-ed.
It is by William Bennet. You know, Bob Bennet, the staunch conservative.

The op-ed seems to be just repeating what FOX said. I don't agree
with the conclusions Mr Bennet reaches. But I imagine you might appreciate it.
So there it is.

To the other posters that are making extreme claims
(it was all part of an Obama kidnapping plot. Good heavans! ), please provide
evidence to back up your incredible claims. Be precise and cite your sources.
Good luck.

Now some aggressive reporting by Fox News' Jennifer Griffin has expanded
scrutiny to the attack itself

As soon as I read those words I know
what is coming, another Fox beat up to beat up on the Obama Administration.
Lots of words with little substance other than extreme right wing whining and I
wasn't wrong. Undoubtly there were mistakes made but none were deliberat,
but as usual Fox News is going to make it into something that they can rant
about while other news passes them by because it isn't as sensational.

The reason the "mainstream media" isn't falling all over this story
is because there's no evidence to back up any of these wild claims. If
there were any real proof that these allegations are even half as bad as you
guys would like to believe, they'd be all over it. The idea that
they're "protecting" President Obama is laughable.

I'm guessing that you don't even realize the problem you're
creating for yourselves here. I'm sure you like to imagine yourselves as
crusaders seeking the truth, but from outside of your right-wing bubble you just
look like people who hate the president so irrationally that you'll grasp
at any straw in the hopes that he won't be re-elected (Today's New
York Time 538 blog gives him a 79% chance of winning on Tuesday.) Even Geraldo
Rivera is criticizing the "GOP bloodlust" that's trying to whip
this story into something it's not, and when you've lost someone as
over-the-top as him, it might be time for some rethinking.

To "spring street" aparently you believe the liberal lies. According to
the original reports by CNN, it wasn't until September 20 that the White
House finally said that Bengazi was a terrorist attack on the ambasador. See CNN
article "Clinton: No sign that Stevens believed he was on an al Qaeda hit
list". In there they clearly state that "The White House, for the first
time Thursday, declared the attack that killed Stevens and three other people a
terrorist attack." The article was written on September 21, so that means
it wasn't until September 20th that the White House finally said that
Bengazi was a terrorist attack.

You can believe the latest spin, or
you can look at what was originally said. Personally, this whole thing looks
like a huge coverup.

Can any of us imagine the consequences of putting this much scrutiny on the Bush
administration and its illegal Iraqi war? That four Americans died is terrible.
That thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died due to a
lie that was clearly exposed before the attack was even launched is so very much
worse that I find this entire concern with Benghazi coming from the right
hypocritical to say the least. Obama may or may not have made mistakes, but when
put against our past republican presidents, Reagan being almost as bad as Bush
with his dishonesty about the Iran/Contra affair, Obama looks especially wise.
Meaning is all about context, and it's clear the right wing is grasping at
straws.

A review of the official transcript on the White House website and the video
from the Rose Garden address shows that not once did the president call the
Benghazi attack a "terror attack." He used the word "terror"
exactly once, late in his address:

“No acts of terror will
ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse
the light of the values that we stand for.” From the context, it was clear
that his reference to "terror" was general. Not once did he apply that
characterization to Benghazi.

Candy Crowley admits she got it wrong and that the President did not refer to
Benghazi as a terror or terroist attack. She commented, "I think actually,
you know, because right after that, I did turn to Romney and said you were
totally correct but they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape
and that there was this riot outside of the Benghazi consulate, which there
wasn't. So he was right in the main, I just think that he picked the wrong
word."

The "offending" video was released in July. Why did it take until right
before 9/11/2012 for it to "offend" people? Why were the producers of
the video supposedly coptic Christian but their aim was to incite violence?
There are so many questions to be answered.